This subject is an important and rather complicated one. As Senator Comyn said, it is one that would require a good deal of consideration and, probably, of discussion. One question that occurred to the minds of most people when they saw this amendment for the first time was the question put by Senator Dowdall: What is the amount of fee-simple land in the country? That I do not know. I have asked recently for information on that point, and, up to the present, I have not been able to get it. I understand that it would take a considerable time and a large staff to go through all the holdings recorded, say, in the Land Commission to find what percentage of the land in each county could be regarded as land held in fee-simple. Then there may be land that never came under the purview of the Land Commission, that might not be recorded there in any way, and that would have to be taken into consideration also.
The amendment, therefore, is not one that any Minister would, on such short notice, be inclined to accept; certainly not without having the matter investigated for his own information and the information of Senators who might require it, and also in order to be able to give the local authorities information on which they would base their calculations, because, as is clear from the amendment, it is intended that the other ratepayers should pay for any concession of this kind given to holders of land in fee-simple. The amount of the Agricultural Grant is fixed. It is not suggested that any further sum should be put into that fund to meet whatever liability might be put upon the fund as the result of this concession to the holders in fee. Therefore it is the other ratepayers in each county, to whom the amount would normally go under the Bill as it stands, who would be expected to lose a share of the grant for the benefit of the holders of land in fee-simple.
Another question likely to arise and come into the minds of people considering this matter is this: Is it to be taken for granted that, for every concession made to a tenant purchaser, a similar concession must be made to the holder of land in fee-simple? Concession of various kinds have been made to tenant purchasers in the last 50 years or so, but no case, on the ground of justice or equity, so far has been made for similar concessions from the Government or from the local authorities to the holders of land in fee-simple. The holders of land in fee-simple, however the land came into their possession, are regarded as people who are very well placed and as very lucky people generally. That would be probably true of those who have been in the possession of land for a considerable period of time. There is, however, the class that Senator Counihan has particularly in mind who bought land during the period when prices were at their peak and who are paying heavy interest to banks or other mortgagees on the money lent to them to buy the land. It is possible that these people feel themselves hit pretty hard and, of course, it is natural that they should look for concessions anywhere they think they can get them. I take it, however, that it is not that class alone that Senator Counihan wishes his amendment, if it were passed, to apply. It would have to apply to all holders of land in fee-simple, whether the land came down to them through heredity——